1. Introduction

The purpose of this wiki is to provide readers with an informed overview of the concept employee empowerment, explore how it is applied to current management practices and form a decision whether it is a new trend in management.

American Management Association (2015)

1.1. Understanding Employee Empowerment

Firstly, Mullins (2013: 781) broadly describes and simplifies the meaning of employee empowerment as ‘where employees are allowed greater freedom, autonomy and self-control over their work, and the responsibility for decision-making’. Although this definition briefly outlines the intention of this concept, it alone can be seen as ambiguous without the knowledge of how it is applied in relevant management practices.

Initially, the subtle idea of employee empowerment dated back to the 1940’s, and was treated at best, ‘interesting for academic debates’ (Potterfield, 1999: 30) and on the other hand, ‘socialism and democracy gone wild, a form of communism’ (Lawler, 1986:9 cited in Fernandez and Moldogaziev, 2013:490). Evidently this concept proved controversial, however, in the awakening of global competition and emphasis on organisational performance, long-term growth and success, Rayner and Adam-Smith (2009: 101) argues that employee empowerment has recently developed as an advanced form of employee involvement. Since then, several other academics have developed further understanding of this concept, which has been applied to an increasing number of organisations as a common management theory and practice within the private and public sector.

Further identified by Conger and Kanungo (1988: 472-473), empowerment can be considered in two different ways. Firstly, as a relational construct, involving the process of which a leader or manager shares their power with their subordinates, and secondly as a motivational construct, which focuses on the internal influence of an individual. Therefore, the concept of power signifies the need for self-determination (Deci, 1975: cited in Conger and Kanungo, 1988: 474), for employees to make them feel more powerful. They also viewed in contrast that if the self-determination of an employee is weakened, they will feel an increase of powerlessness.

There is also a blurred distinction between identifying employee empowerment as ‘power-sharing’ or whether it is the ‘transfer’ of decision-making authority as noted by Huq (2010: 5). Furthermore, Mills and Friesen (2001: cited in Crainer and Dearlove, 2001: 323) highlight that the term ‘employee empowerment’ can often be confused with delegation; although a key characteristic, further analysis will describe it in a deeper context.

---

2. Kanter’s Theory of Empowerment

Rosabeth M. Kanter (Twitter, 2017)

Kanter’s theory amongst many other academic theories, has been chosen as topic of discussion for being one of the first, notable studies on empowerment. It has continuously been used in studies to understand the association between empowerment, commitment to work and job satisfaction, applied to numerous nursing and healthcare studies to this day (Example shown in Section 8.1). Kanter’s Structural Theory of Empowerment (1977, 1993) provides a framework for the influence of organisations and their structures on individual behaviour. To achieve this, Kanter identified that management must create empowered structures, such as the flattening of hierarchies and participatory decision-making structures.

A main element to Kanter’s theory suggests that power within organisations are positional and not because of individual characteristics, and that it is the organisational structure that shapes the individual’s behaviour. Below are the key organisational factors that Kanter uses to explain how employees feel empowered:

Kanter’s organisational factors	Explanation
Access to information	Ability to have knowledge of organisational decisions, policies and goals to be effective
Support	Feedback and guidance – emotional, professional or technical support
Opportunities and resources	Mobility and growth within organisation, gain professional opportunities, participation on work groups
Informal power	Both facilitate access to these sources of power and opportunity
Formal power

Adapted from: Kanter (1993)

This theory provides substantial groundwork for further theories, but also provides a framework that can be challenged. For example, Jim Belosic, co-founder and CEO of ShortStack software comments that when he seeks to employ, he ‘brings on people who have a manager’s mentality but a producer’s work ethic’ (2013). This implies that individuals must have a motivated attitude to be able to be empowered successfully, and is indeed about their individual characteristics, not the job position they have, contradicting this part of Kanter’s theory. However, Kanter's organisational factors of empowerment are embedded amongst the stages of implementing empowerment in management practices, as shown in Section 3, suggesting these factors are crucial to consider.

Kanter’s theory, which first conceptualised in 1977, suggests that empowerment is an established term in management, which has been developed, improved and altered according to the changing environment. It must also be recognised that this theory can be applied to various other industries and not just healthcare as previously stated. More recent studies, to name a few, include hospitality and service industries (Yen et al., 2016; Lee, et al., 2016), construction (Alazzaz and Whyte, 2015; Bolumole et al., 2016), and education (Lee and Nie, 2014), suggesting that employee empowerment is becoming more widely applicable in society today.

---

3. Empowerment as an effective management tool

To create a successful empowerment system, managers must form a clear and structured approach to ensure tasks run smoothly. For maximum effectiveness, employees must understand what exactly is expected of them, what needs to be achieved, the boundaries of their freedom of action and how far they can employ independent decision-making. There are six main stages to this structured approach (Mullins, 2013: 648):

1. Clarification of objectives and suitable patterns of organisation – policies and procedures defined to provide framework for authority and responsibility
2. Agreement on terms of reference – Identify and agree employee’s role and terms of reference, and areas in which they are responsible. Emphasis on end results at this stage rather than detailed instructions
3. Guidance, support and training, and communication – Once terms are agreed, briefing, training and support should be given and identify whom to go to for further help
4. Effective monitoring and review procedures – Agree target dates for tasks, and address that feedback can be given, level of expected achievement, performance measures and how each area can be evaluated
5. Freedom of action with agreed terms – Employee then left to perform tasks. Managers must accept their freedom of action to successfully achieve, rather than keeping a close watch
6. Related reward system – End result should consist of successful achievement of delegation and should be presented in a reward system such as, bonus payments, improved job satisfaction and opportunities, less work stress

A clearly defined outline of applying employee empowerment to management practices, suggests that implementing employee empowerment is relatively straight-forward for organisations to consider, however Section 5 and Section 7 explains the potential challenges faced for both management and employees. These challenges may argue whether employee empowerment should be practised further in management.

---

4. Benefits to Employee Empowerment

Closely linked to delegation, there are three main factors that arise from the use of employee empowerment as a management practice, stated by Mullins (2013: 645):

• Time – allows more free time for the manager to focus on higher priority tasks. Also, encourages the manager to be available for consultation more and improves communication
• Training and development – tests the employee’s ability to perform at a higher level of authority and responsibility, encouraging advancement. This also aids the decision of promotion
• Strength of the workforce – encourages the employees to develop their abilities and provides a greater scope for opportunities. By becoming more involved in overall planning and decision-making, it can lead to improved morale, motivation and job satisfaction

However, it has been stated by Greasely et al., (2008: 43) ‘benefits of empowerment should not be assumed to automatically occur, nor should the rhetoric of empowerment be confused with reality’. Which suggest that the concept employee empowerment may only exist rhetorically, a phrase used to convince employees they are empowered, but in reality, it is just the control they already gain in their job role.

For further reading of examples where companies have benefited from adopting employee empowerment, please see here.

---

5. Barriers to Employee Empowerment

Although it is evident that employee empowerment has a positive impact on improving organisational performance, an IBM survey of 1,700 senior management professionals in 64 countries, outlined potential barriers managers may face when applying employee empowerment within their performance strategies (Ji-Eun, 2012), for example:

• Anxiety - Managers may feel concerned about their job security. They fear that allowing employees more control may backfire, and endanger their position
• Distrust - Managers may lack trust and doubt their employee’s performance of tasks without supervision
• Poor communication - Employees may be unprepared to take on more responsibility without regular communication. Therefore, this will create a ‘If I want it done right, I will do it myself’ attitude from managers

However, it must be noted that there are various approaches to overcome the above potential obstacles to employee empowerment, adapted from Ji-Eun (2012). For example:

• Anxiety – Managers should recognise that the long-term advantage of employee empowerment improves whole team performance, and expands their own scope of authority. If still unclear, managers should clarify the extent and details of shared authority to their staff to ensure they understand their responsibilities
• Distrust – Managers must understand that without trust, there is little room for employee empowerment to be successful. By understanding the individual employee’s capabilities and strengths, the manager can invest more time to identify areas of growth and suitability when delegating responsibility
• Poor communication – Managers should give employees a chance to gain experience of handling increased responsibilities. If results are not as expected, managers should seek further initiatives such as on-the-job training (shadowing), or assign time for both parties to share feedback, questions and suggestions. Positive feedback will also enhance confidence and could consequently deliver better performance
  
  

If managers are able to overcome these potential barriers successfully, more organisations may seek to employ this strategy in the workplace. By eliminating any challenges of employee empowerment, this may increase the likelihood of a positive trend in management practices.

---

6. The Influence of Employee Empowerment today

In an age where advancements in technology are constantly improving, and therefore access to information becoming more transparent, many organisations are now adopting a flatter organisational structure. By removing layers of authority, it encourages more collaboration amongst employees, faster decisions, and reduces redundancy (Belosic, 2013: cited in Lemons, 2017: 4).

There is also statistical evidence to prove this. In a Global Human Capital Trends survey of 7,000 responses across 130 countries, many companies have already moved away from traditional structures. Over 80% of respondents report that their organisation is restructuring or have recently completed an organisational restructure (Deloitte, 2016). It is stated from this report that companies are now seeking to decentralise authority, and move towards more product- and customer-centric organisations, by forming dynamic networks of highly empowered teams and individuals that can share and conduct creativity at best.

Furthermore, CEO of W. L. Gore & Associates, Terri Kelly (2010) comments on her viewpoint of engaging in employee empowerment, and how this has helped her organisation to succeed:

“It’s far better to rely upon a broad base of individuals and leaders who share a common set of values and feel personal ownership for the overall success of the organisation. These responsible and empowered individuals will serve as much better watchdogs than any single, dominant leader or bureaucratic structure.”
The below video complements this statement, demonstrating its importance for organisations of today. To believe and understand that empowering employees and their workforce provides a long-term benefit, alongside the increasing trend of the digital, mobile, and social world.


By forecasting what is expected in the future of work, embedded in the promotion of empowerment in this video, and including the survey results of the number of organisations now becoming less centralised, only suggests that the trend of empowerment is shifting upwards. However, how much is it a growing trend as opposed to a trend that has been ongoing for some time? For example, previous studies already noted that employees of flatter structured organisations performed better, were more satisfied, and had higher work motivation than those in traditional, hierarchical structured organisations (Tannenbaum et al., 1974; Ivanevich and Donnelley, 1975; Porter and Siegel, 1965: cited in Anderson and Brown, 2010: 9). Although this suggests that the implementation of flatter organisations is not new, it does not provide direct evidence that employee empowerment came as a result of this.

---

7. Can Empowerment turn into Dis-empowerment?

Weidenstedt (2016) commented that it is not realistic to assume that empowerment is an option in all interactions. Further explained, empowerment is only possible in situations where there is a significantly high power differential between the two parties. Therefore, it may be construed by this comment that employee empowerment is only effective in large organisations, than smaller organisations or organisations that consist of a flatter organisational structure. However, Thorlakson and Murray (1996) argues that the larger the organisation, the more difficult to institute participatory management, therefore reinforces the benefits of flatter organisations.

Another point to describe by Weidenstedt (2016) suggests that in a transaction of empowerment, the employee may need the help of the manager, more than the manager needs them. Although the intention for this practice is to ensure the employee can gain both tangible and intangible benefits from the shared authority, there is a possibility that the employee can get out of their depth in producing high quality results. Consequently, this may produce negative psychological factors for the employee, by not believing they can perform as expected, or if the level or volumes of work are too much. This is reflected in Section 8.1, where the hospital nurses felt too overwhelmed by the increased volumes of work given, leading to unhappiness and stress. Therefore, this counter-argues the point made previously about employee empowerment becoming an increasing trend for organisations, as not all employees will benefit from this concept in management. If organisations such as those in healthcare industries, continue to experience negative impacts from empowering their employees, they may focus on implementing other strategies to enhance employee performance and motivation instead, such as rewards and bonuses, work/life balance schemes etc.

Furthermore, it can also be argued that the negative impacts stated above may not necessarily be the main contributes to why empowerment is not considered effective. For example, empowerment may in fact be an option in all interactions but only if the organisation employing this, do so correctly and addresses the necessary stages (addressed in Section 3) to achieve this.

---

8. Case studies

8.1 Employee Empowerment in the Public Sector

National Health Service
Employee empowerment within the healthcare industry has continued to grow due to political and managerial support. Cunningham and Hyman (1996) examined the association between the commitment and morale of staff in two different NHS Trust hospitals. They identified that the main empowerment policies, implemented by the human resources personnel included:

• Improved communications
• Development of effective management training programmes
• Customer care initiatives
• Trust-wide appraisal systems
  
  

Line managers delegated responsibilities to the staff members, allowing them to rely less on management instruction, but also ensuring that the commitment in the standards of care were maintained as a high priority. However, the results of this initiative proved to be more work for both managers and employees. For example, over 70% of line managers indicated workload had increased significantly in three years, and although manager’s commitment had risen, had taken an opposite effect on the employees. They suggested their lack of commitment, stress and decreased morale was a result to these changes. Cunningham and Hyman (1996) identified that the reasons to explain these results were due to budget priorities, lack of training, and resistance to the implementation of empowerment, whilst many employees complained that very little authority was being delegated from management. This suggests that the proposed policies did not comply well in correlation to financial pressure of the public sector, and management did not address the challenges they faced effectively.

8.2. Employee Empowerment in the Private Sector

The Toyota Way
'The Toyota Way' was established by the company as a philosophy to encourage employees to ‘exercise their abilities to think, be creative, and utilise their strength to achieve social contribution and self-actualisation at work’ (Toyota Motor Corporation Global, 2017). In the 1950’s, Toyota experienced labour disputes and personnel cuts in a management crisis. This led the company to enforce a Joint Declaration of Labour and Management in 1962. Since then, this environment of mutual trust and responsibility between both parties, nurtured a relationship where employees proactively cooperate to improve productivity, and management works to share information and increase employee awareness, whilst maintaining and improving working conditions (Toyota Global, 2016).

According to Liker (2004: 8), standardisation is also fundamental element to employee empowerment at Toyota, allowing staff to take control of their own work and be committed in providing the best quality products. For example, the Toyota Production System (TPS) encourages their production staff to ‘build quality into the process’ and are authorised to stop a moving assembly line if they identify product defects (Asian Productivity Organisation, 2012). Liker and Meier (2007: cited in Asian Productivity Organisation, 2012) stated that “the technology for developing people is not new or remarkable. The commitment to doing it every day, consistently, at a high level is unfortunately very rare and remarkable”. In 2013, Toyota changed their centralised approach to a flatter organisational structure which would allow better flexibility and clearer communication. This change consisted of: streamlined board of directors, scaling down executive decision-making systems, allowing local decision-making by overseas affiliates, and ensuring outside opinions are listened to and reflected in management practices (Toyota Global, 2012).

This case study provides evidence, that employee empowerment is an effective approach to organisations when in seek of a change. By altering the organisational structure and culture, it allows for a more innovative and collaborative approach to the changing environment.

For further reading of the full version of this publication, please see here.

---

9. Conclusion

Is it a New Trend in Management?

It is evident that employee empowerment has been recognised as a concept for a long period of time, and therefore it could be suggested that this concept is indeed not new. Applying this to a business context, many established organisations implemented the traditional hierarchical structure, consisting of many layers of management and ensuring that only senior professionals made the decisions of the organisations, however that is now changing. It was not until the turn of the century that technological development transformed organisations, and encouraged more to focus on their employees to gain the best results for their performance and consumers. The evidence and theory provided in this wiki demonstrates that employee empowerment is not new.

Furthermore, the application of employee empowerment in a business context, through the increasing demand of flatter organisations, suggests this concept has now become a demonstrable strategic term in management. Organisations can now identify the long-term benefits and how to overcome barriers faced when empowering their employees, due to examples of established organisations already implementing this successfully. There is an increasing number of research to show that employee empowerment contributes to organisational success, and organisations may feel to adopt this approach to succeed in a growing competitive market.

There is also statistical evidence provided in Section 6 which confirms that employee empowerment is a growing trend for the future, as it is increasingly recognised that applying this concept has larger positive effects than it does negative. However, what is the distinction between employee empowerment being a fad or a trend? Cambridge Dictionary definition describes a fad as ‘an activity or topic of interest that is very popular for a short period of time’ (2017). Since employee empowerment has been evolving since the 20th century, and is in the process of being practised across a wide range of different organisations in varying sectors, this trend has the potential to be developed even further. Due to its ambiguous term, employee empowerment can be further extended to existing cultures and groups such as female and minority empowerment in the workplace, empowerment of disabled workers, youth empowerment, as an increasing overall trend to shape the future of management.

---

Further reading:
Does Employee Empowerment Endanger Managers?
Employees want more freedom at work
How to promote personal responsibility through empowerment

---

10. References

1. Alazzaz, F. and Whyte, A. (2015). Linking employee empowerment with productivity in off-site construction. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 22 (1): 21-37.
2. American Management Association (2015). Employee Empowerment. [image] Available from: http://playbook.amanet.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/employee-empowerment-crop-620x250.jpg [Accessed 4 Feb. 2017].
3. Anderson, C. and Brown, C. (2010). The functions and dysfunctions of hierarchy. Research in Organisational Behaviour. [online] Available from: http://www.haas.berkeley.edu/faculty/papers/anderson/functions%20and%20dysfunctions%20of%20hierarchy.pdf [Accessed 2 February 2017].
4. Asian Productivity Organisation, (2012). In the workplace: The importance of employee empowerment. APO News [online] Available from: http://www.apo-tokyo.org/publications/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2012_Mar-Apr_p6a.pdf [Accessed 23 January 2017].
5. Belosic, J. (2013). 5 Ways A Flat Management Structure Can Empower Your Business. OPEN Forum. [online] Available from: https://www.americanexpress.com/us/small-business/openforum/articles/5-ways-a-flat-management-structure-can-empower-your-business/ [Accessed 4 February 2017].
6. Bolumole, Grawe, and Daugherty, (2016). Customer Service Responsiveness in Logistics Outsourcing Contracts: The Influence of Job Autonomy and Role Clarity among On-site Representatives. Transportation Journal, 55(2): 124.
7. Cambridge Dictionary. (2017). Meaning of fad in the Cambridge English Dictionary. [online] Available from: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fad [Accessed 6 February 2017].
8. Conger, J. and Kanungo, R. (1988). The Empowerment Process: Integrating Theory and Practice. Academy of Management Review, 13 (3): 471-482.
9. Crainer, S. and Dearlove, D. (2001). The Financial times handbook of management. 2nd edition. London: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
10. Cunningham, I. and Hyman, J. (1996). Empowerment: the right medicine for improving employee commitment and morale in the NHS?. Health Manpower Management, 22(6): 14-24.
11. Deloitte, (2016). Global Human Capital Trends 2016. The new organisation: Different by design. [online] Deloitte University Press, p.17. Available from: https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/be/Documents/human-capital/gx-dup-global-human-capital-trends-2016.pdf [Accessed 31 January 2017].
12. Fernandez, S. and Moldogaziev, T. (2013). Employee Empowerment, Employee Attitudes, and Performance: Testing a Causal Model. Public Administration Review, 73 (3): 490-506.
13. Greasley, K., Bryman, A., Dainty, A., Price, A., Naismith, N. and Soetanto, R. (2008). Understanding empowerment from an employee perspective. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 14 (1): 43.
14. Huq, R. (2010). Employee Empowerment: The Rhetoric and the Reality. Devon: Triarchy Press. 5
15. Ji-Eun, Y. (2012). 7 Principles of Empowerment. SERI Quarterly, [online] Available from: http://www.seriworld.org/16/qt_PdfDown.html?mncd=0301&pub=20120418&seq=282 [Accessed 23 January 2017].
16. Kanter, R.M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
17. Kanter, R.M. (1993). Men and women of the corporation. 2nd edition. New York: Basic Books.
18. Kelly, T. (2010). No More Heroes: Distributed Leadership. [Blog] Management Innovation Exchange. Available from: http://www.managementexchange.com/blog/no-more-heroes [Accessed 31 January 2017].
19. Lee, A. and Nie, Y. (2014). Understanding teacher empowerment: Teachers' perceptions of principal's and immediate supervisor's empowering behaviours, psychological empowerment and work-related outcomes. Teaching and Teacher Education. 41: 67-79.
20. Lee, G., Kim, P. and Perdue, R. (2016). A longitudinal analysis of an accelerating effect of empowerment on job satisfaction: Customer-contact vs. non-customer-contact workers. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 57: 1-8.
21. Lemons, J. (2017). Flat Management. Flat Management. [online] Available from: http://businessresearcher.sagepub.com/sbr-1645-94858-2644624/20150202/flat-management [Accessed 4 February 2017].
22. Liker, J. (2004). The Toyota Way. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
23. Mullins, L. (2013). Management and organisational behaviour. 10th edition. Harlow, England: Prentice Hall/Financial Times.
24. Potterfield, T. (1999). The Business of Employee Empowerment: Democracy and Ideology in the Workplace. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group. 30.
25. Rayner, C. and Adam-Smith, D. (2009). Managing and Leading People. 2nd edition. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development
26. SAP (2014). The Future of Work and Employee Empowerment. [video] Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaNNysWb9Qw [Accessed 1 Feb. 2017].
27. Twitter, (2017). Rosabeth Moss Kanter. [image] Available from: https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/381180533/rkanter.jpg [Accessed 4 February 2017].
28. Thorlakson, A. and Murray, R. (1996). An Empirical Study of Empowerment in the Workplace. Group & Organisation Management, 21(1): 67-83.
29. Toyota Global (2016). Sustainability Data Book 2016. Society | Employees. [online] Available from: http://www.toyota-global.com/sustainability/common/viewer/?file=/sustainability/society/employees/sdb16_so06_en.pdf#sdb16:so06_01:187. [Accessed 23 January 2017].
30. Toyota Global (2012). TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION GLOBAL WEBSITE | 75 Years of TOYOTA | Organisational Changes | Last Organisational Chart. [online] Available from: http://www.toyota-global.com/company/history_of_toyota/75years/data/company_information/management_and_finances/management/organizational/organizational_changes15.html [Accessed 31 January 2017].
31. Toyota Motor Corporation Global Website (2017). TOYOTA | Employees. [online] Available from: http://www.toyota-global.com/sustainability/society/employees/ [Accessed 23 January 2017].
32. Weidenstedt, L. (2016). Empowerment Gone Bad: Communicative Consequences of Power Transfers. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, 2: 5-8.
33. Yen, C., Yeh, C. and Lin, S. (2016). Psychological empowerment and service orientation: A study of front-line employees in the food and beverage industry. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 19 (3): 298-314.